Maybe he did get a rough ride from Hillary in their (hopefully?) last debate. But Barack Obama is right when he says there are a lot of bitter souls in the USA today. And they have their reasons, no doubt. Meanwhile, back way up north for a moment it almost seemed that Calgary and not Montreal might be the local patriotic Stanley Cup contender this year. Now that moment has apparently gone – and been? And, as widely predicted, Ottawa has promptly vanished from the scene.

This week it also almost seemed that, just as Calgary began to falter, the Mounties raided Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa, as requested by Elections Canada. Or was it just “the Liberals and the CBC“? Whatever, the Harperites are crying foul. But what does that really mean? And finally, do you know what it means when the three NAFTA leaders get together on April 21 and 22, for dinner and breakfast in New Orleans? I will explain. Though the one man who might have done this best, Charles Mingus, composer of “Better Get It In Your Soul,” died in Cuernavaca, Mexico, 29 years ago.

Some say Barack Obama had a rough ride in his April 16 Pennsylvania TV debate with Hillary Clinton, as this particular dynamic duo continue to slug it out for the Democratic presidential nomination 2008. And he probably did, in some ways.

But he made some points too. As recounted by Nedra Pickler for the Associated Press, e.g.: “During the course of the last few days, you know, she’s said I’m elitist, out of touch, condescending,’ Obama said … You take one person’s statement, if it’s not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death,’ he added. And that’s what Senator Clinton’s been doing over the last four days.'”

But, the new multicultural All-American from Kansas, Hawaii, and Illinois urged, Ms. Clinton herself “has gone through this … I recall when, back in 1992, when she made a statement about how, what do you expect, should I be at home baking cookies? And people attacked her for being elitist and this and that. And I remember watching that on TV and saying, ‘Well, that’s not who she is. That’s not what she believes. That’s not what she meant’ … And I think Senator Clinton learned the wrong lesson from it because she’s adopting the same tactics.”

So take that, all you whatever-and-wherever-you-ares in some false Anytown, USA. Besides, the patriot rocker Bruce Springsteen has just endorsed Senator Obama for President. And you can’t get any more down-to-earth, anti-elitist, and American working class than that. As Mr. Springsteen has said, Barack Obama “has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where …nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.'” (Mmmm … well he’s for Obama anyway!)

2. Policy implications of early (Canadian) Stanley Cup action …

As of noon, April 17, 2008, the Montreal Canadiens lead their playoff series against Boston Bruins, 3 games to 1. The next and perhaps final game is tonight, at Montreal.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh Penguins, complete with Sidney Crosby from Nova Scotia, have now eliminated the Ottawa Senators, four games straight.

The Calgary Flames and San Jose Sharks are tied at 2 games apiece in their series. Further games are tonight at San Jose, and Sunday, April 20 at Calgary.

There are five other NHL playoff series in motion at the moment as well. But they all involve strictly US teams – or at least teams representing US cities – and are thus of no immediate interest for Canadian public policy.

The long-term Canadian public policy implications of the Montreal-Boston series are discussed in the April 11 item below, “25th STANLEY CUP FOR CANADIENS .. and 25 seats for Stephen Harper in Quebec?”

The short-term implications of Calgary vs. San Jose are that Calgary’s failure to take a 3-1 lead in this series on April 15 was more or less correlated in time with the Mounties’ raid on Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa, as discussed in 3 immediately below.

For me personally, the fun started on Tuesday, April 15 when the Vancouver Sun website breathlessly announced: “The RCMP are at the Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa this morning, apparently in relation to an investigation involving Elections Canada, media reports say … More to follow.”

Somewhat later more had followed, and it was intriguing enough: “RCMP officers executed a search warrant Tuesday at the national headquarters of the Conservative Party of Canada, an unprecedented development that energized the opposition parties and improved the odds that they will unite to vote down the government this spring and force a general election.”

There were some further details from the Canadian Press: “The RCMP has raided Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa after receiving a request from Elections Canada … At least two Mounties were at the party offices on the 12th floor of a downtown building today … Elections Canada spokesman John Enright confirmed that elections commissioner William Corbett requested the assistance of the Mounties to execute a search warrant, but he wouldn’t say why … Elections Canada and the Conservative party have been engaged a protracted legal battle over alleged campaign spending irregularities in the 2006 election … The party allowed Tory candidates to claim expenses for TV commercials that were produced for the national campaign … The Conservatives insist the transactions were legal but Elections Canada disagrees and rival parties have labelled the scheme outright fraud.”

The next day Le Devoir was reporting in Canada’s other official language: “L’tau se resserre autour du Parti conservateur du Canada, dont les finances lectorales font l’objet d’une enqute d’lections Canada. Les locaux du parti de Stephen Harper ont t perquisitionns hier par le Commissaire aux lections fdrales sous la supervision de la GRC. [Where “GRC” is what “RCMP” becomes in French, in case you’d forgotten.] Cette descente chez ceux qui promettaient de mettre fin aux scandales libraux a eu l’effet d’une bombe la Chambre des communes. Pour toute dfense, le premier ministre a attaqu l’impartialit d’lections Canada.”

Then the Globe and Mail weighed in: “The Opposition is on the attack over Conservative claims that Elections Canada’s raid on its headquarters was a public relations stunt aimed at intimidation … Emerging from their closed-door caucus meetings Wednesday morning [April 16], Tory MPs painted themselves as victims who have been unfairly subjected to a media circus by Elections Canada. Liberals, who are quietly hoping the development will give them a political boost, vehemently disagreed … Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale noted Wednesday that the two men in charge at Elections Canada – Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand and Elections Canada Commissioner William Corbett – were both appointed by the current Conservative government … Mr. Goodale argued that fact undercut claims that Elections Canada is seeking to embarrass the Conservatives.”

Just what is the issue here? Apparently, as the Globe and Mail has also explained, it has something to do with “what has become known as the in and out’ scheme,” whereby in the 2006 federal election campaign “the Conservative Party transferred up to $50,000 to individual candidates who, in turn, gave the money back to the party for ads created at the national campaign headquarters … If the TV and radio ads in question were in fact national in nature, the cash-flushed Conservatives surpassed the $18.3-million legal election-spending limit by more than $1.2-million.”

None of this seems absolutely monumental, so far at any rate. Except that it shows what a political cesspool Ottawa has become over the past few years – even allowing that it has always been a political cesspool of some impressive enough stature, ever since the days of the dead white Fathers of Confederation in the 1860s, etc, etc, etc. And you do have to wonder just why Elections Canada would ask the Mounties to conduct such a raid, if there wasn’t something somewhere that somehow seemed to justify such “an unprecedented development“?

And then too, none of the ultimate hard facts in the so-called sponsorship scandal or Adscam of yesteryear seemed absolutely monumental either. And look what that finally led to! The other thing you wonder about in pondering all this too, no doubt, is just how much longer the current party animals in Ottawa can carry on, without some kind of fresh federal election to at least try to sort things out a little less dysfunctionally than they increasingly seem to be right now. Whatever else, it’s starting to sound a bit like someone in Ottawa really is crying for help. Maybe the Canadian people actually will have to intervene … and more or less soon enough? (Or is this just yet another masterful Stephen Harper Tory plot, to try to get a majority government – even if many pundits nowadays do not think that is at all possible?)

Susan Delacourt’s blog in the Toronto Star – with its intriguing April 17 reference to “Cadman redux” and how “Young Liberals were driving” a “van around downtown Ottawa, blaring audio excerpts of Stephen Harper’s interview with the author of a book on the late MP Chuck Cadman” – offers more food for thought about the likelihood of or at least need for something like a fresh Canadian federal election soon.

Under the heading “Lessons from the south” Ms. Delacourt’s blog also notes: “Thanks to the transparency and openness of the White House, we are getting details of what Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be up to in New Orleans next week at the three amigos’ summit. Here in Ottawa, we probably wouldn’t get a schedule like this until an hour or two before the events… maybe a day earlier if we’re lucky … Say what you like about the Americans, but you have to admire their professionalism about media relations.”

The White House three amigos’ schedule, apparently passed out to Canadian and Mexican as well as US journalists, includes: “Monday, April 21 … 7:30 pm … THE PRESIDENT participates in a Dinner with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada … New Orleans Location | New Orleans, Louisiana … CLOSED PRESS … Note: THE PRESIDENT will participate in a Greeting with the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico upon arrival. (POOL COVERAGE).”

On Tuesday, April 22 (also the day of the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, of course) there will be as well: “8:10 am … THE PRESIDENT participates in a Breakfast with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada … New Orleans Location | New Orleans, Louisiana … STILLS AND POOL TV AT TOP.”

Some in all three NAFTA countries have neurotic fears about such meetings, viewed as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)” – “a region-level dialogue with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues … founded in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 by Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada, Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, and George W. Bush, President of the United States.” And it is true enough that the April 21-22, 2008 gathering in New Orleans is supposed to be an “SPP summit.”

The Vive le Canada website, e.g., is currently running an item headlined “Energy Unions To Hold SPP Counter-Summit In New Orleans.” But just what is really going on about all this?

According to the White House schedule, on April 21 at “6:30 pm … THE PRESIDENT makes Remarks at a United States Chamber of Commerce Reception … Gallier Hall | New Orleans, Louisiana.” And then on April 22 at “9:20 am … THE PRESIDENT meets with North American Competitiveness Council … Gallier Hall | New Orleans, Louisiana … STILLS AND POOL TV AT TOP … POOL FOR CAMERAS; OPEN FOR CORRESPONDENTS.” This meeting will last for no more than an hour, if that.

Just for the record, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) “met with Prime Minister Harper, President Caldern, and President Bush during the North American Leaders’ Summit in Montebello, Quebec in August 2007. The first Report to Leaders was presented … On February 27 28, 2008 the NACC met with North American security and prosperity ministers during the SPP Ministerial Meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico to review progress on the NACC recommendations and the five priorities identified by Leaders in Montebello … the NACC members will meet once again with Prime Minister Harper, President Caldern, and President Bush during the April 2008 North American Leaders’ Summit in New Orleans to review progress on the recommendations and establish priorities for further collaboration.”

Put another way, anyone seriously fearing, or hoping, that the “SPP” is rapidly leading towards some wholesale security and prosperity integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico (hello Lou Dobbs and Maude Barlow, e.g.) should not be holding their breath.

What we maybe should all be asking ourselves, perhaps, is what will happen to the SPP if Barack Obama actually does become President of the USA in January 2009? (Or, for that matter, even Hillary Clinton or John McCain?)

CODA: Barack Obama and remembering Charles Mingus – Bitter Get It In Your Soul

Personally, I still find it hard to believe that Barack Obama finally will become President of the USA – even as I also find the prospect profoundly attractive, and deeply hope that it will actually happen, and prove my current personal neurotic doubts and fears altogether misplaced.

If it does happen, America may start to remember, a little better than it does now, just how much what is best about it owes to the legacy of African Americans, and their remarkable gifts to mainstream American culture. All this is no doubt nowhere more noticeable and remarkable than in the vast universe of American music.

Among the many cases in point is the gifted composer and jazz bassist Charles Mingus, who was born in 1922 in Nogales, Arizona and “raised largely in the Watts area of Los Angeles, California.” Like Barack Obama Mingus was in fact quite multiracial: “His mother’s paternal heritage was Chinese and English, while historical records indicate that his father was the illegitimate offspring of a black farmhand and his Swedish employer’s white granddaughter.” In a final burst of cosmopolitanism, he died early in 1979 in Cuernavaca, Mexico.

One of Mingus’s more popular (if hardly most representative or interesting) tunes is called “Better Get It In Your Soul” (also sometimes rendered “Better Get Hit In Your Soul”). It first appeared in 1959 on the LP Mingus Ah Um, which was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame in 1999 and has been subsequently re-released as a CD. If your computer is connected for sound CLICK HERE for a sample of “Better Get It In Your Soul” from the original 1959 album. And then CLICK HERE for a 1980 version of the same tune, featuring: Randy Brecker, trumpet; Joe Farrrell, saxophone; Jimmer Knepper, trombone; Roland Hanna, piano; Aladar Pege, bass; and Billy Hart, drums. This is far from Charles Mingus’s best music. But it has a certain energy, optimism, and even authentic joy about it that would be wonderful to see at the White House – in some degree at least. Mingus himself was quite bitter about many things, you might say, for many good reasons. But his never bitter music was his great antidote.

April 11: 25th STANLEY CUP FOR CANADIENS .. and 25 seats for Stephen Harper in Quebec?

The Canadian contingent in the 2008 Stanley Cup hockey playoffs may say something about the somewhat strange status of Canada’s Conservative minority prime minister, Stephen Harper. Calgary, Ottawa, and Montreal are the three teams from hockey’s home and native land that still have a chance at the Cup this year. And at least while the winter cabin fever still lingers, you could imagine that these three cities symbolize Stephen Harper’s Canada too.

Right now, with the first of the interminable rounds of NHL playoffs just starting, the smart money says that Montreal is the Canadian team with the best shot at ultimate triumph. And this also seems to symbolize something about the political kettle of fish that the Man from the West (born and raised in Toronto) has finally cooked up for himself. So … what if the legendary Club de Hockey etc – and not Mr. Harper’s current hometown Calgary Flames – actually does win a record 25th Stanley Cup? Will that finally mean a fresh federal election in 2008 after all? And maybe even an almost-majority Harper Tory Bleu government in Ottawa – with at least 25 seats in Quebec? (And remember: if by some fluke this actually does happen, before the snow flies again in this vast cold land, you heard it here first!)

Les Canadiens and their 24 Stanley Cups … world hockey team of destiny

One of the ultimate weaknesses of Quebec separatism (independantism/sovereigntism etc) in the last quarter of the 20th century was that it had no good answer to the question “What will the Montreal Canadiens be called if Quebec separates from Canada?”

The Montreal Quebecois was no answer. For one thing, it would be almost impossible to fit an “H” inside a “Q”, as elegantly as it fits inside a “C” – for either “Club de Hockey” or “Canadien Habitant,” depending on which story your grandmother told you (allowing that the first is almost certainly the right one, as your elementary school basketball coach also explained).

More importantly, by the time Rene Levesque’s Parti Quebecois won its first Quebec provincial election in 1976, les Canadiens of Montreal had long ago established themselves as the most brilliant and popular French Canadian and/or Quebecois national warriors extant.(Remembering that until the 1960s, “Quebecois” just meant a resident of Quebec City.)

Back in the bad old days between the two world wars “the Canadiens were considered Montreal’s French’ team, as opposed to the primarily English’ Montreal Maroons.” As early as 1938 the French Canadiens had triumphed in at least the hockey culture of the French Canadian metropolis. The English Maroons had been consigned to Karl Marx’s garbage heap of history. (And remember here that at this point Montreal was still Canada’s most populous big city.)

In the summer of 1960 Jean Lesage was elected Quebec premier. And he started the modern Quiet Revolution/La Revolution Tranquille on the banks of the lower St. Lawrence River – where French-speaking Canadians were the overwhelming democratic majority. By this point the Club de Hockey Canadien had already won an even dozen Stanley Cups – five of them in succession, in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960.

Another pregnant prelude here was the “Richard [say Rih-shard] Riot … on 17 March 1955 in Montreal, Quebec. Maurice Richard, the star ice hockey player for the Montreal Canadiens, was suspended for a violent attack on a linesman and it provoked a riot at the Montreal Forum that spilled out into the streets. Some commentators have linked the Richard Riot in the 1950s with the birth of Quebec nationalism and the Quiet Revolution.”

Maurice “the Rocket” Richard himself retired in 1960 – after what is still one of the most legendary careers in hockey history. But he was succeed by his younger brother Henri “the Pocket Rocket” Richard.

The Pocket Rocket had started playing in 1955, alongside his older brother, and in time for the string of five Stanley Cups from 1956 to 1960. Then he was on board for six more of the ultimate Montreal hockey trophies – in 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1971, and 1973.

Henri “the Pocket Rocket” himself retired in 1975. He was not on board for the next string of Montreal Canadien Stanley Cup victories, that punctuated the early history of the first Parti Quebecois provincial government – in 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979.

Perhaps because they knew that their unique French Canadian nationalist magic could not survive even the kind of “sovereign-associated” Quebec of Rene Levesque’s dreams, the Club de Hockey Canadien did not win a Stanley Cup in 1980 – the year of the first and ultimately failed Quebec sovereignty referendum.

It would take two more ultimate hockey trophies, however, to reach Montreal’s present grand total of an even two dozen – in 1986 and 1993. And as of this exact moment that is more than twice as many as the next most successful team in all of hockey history – the Toronto Maple Leafs with a mere 11 Stanley Cups.

(As hard as this itself may be to believe today: the last Leaf Stanley Cup was in 1967, the Centennial year of the 1867 Canadian Confederation. And for a list of all the other Cup-winning teams – from the Ottawa Senators, Detroit Red Wings, and Edmonton Oilers to the Tampa Bay Lightning, Carolina Hurricanes, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks – CLICK HERE!)

The Montreal Canadiens 2008 are definitely a different exponent of French Canadian/Quebecois or even just plain Canadian nationalism than the teams of the more ancient past – more diverse and cosmopolitan-multicultural (as they no doubt should be).

In regular season play this year, e.g., the Canadiens were the only team in the NHL “that had seven different players register more than 50 points … Kovalev (84), Plekanec (69), Mark Streit (62), Andrei Markov (58), Saku Koivu (56), Kostitsyn (53) and Christopher Higgins (52).” Compare the (frequently Russian import) surnames here with those of the five players from the Stanley Cup champions of 50 years ago, in 1958, who registered 50 points or more (and in a shorter season, oldtimers will no doubt stress): Dickie Moore (84), Henri Richard (80), Jean Beliveau (59), Claude Provost (51), and Bernie “Boom Boom” Geoffrion (50).

All this only shows that the legendary Club de Hockey is keeping up with the times like almost everyone else – in a league that is already more globalized than most of the rest of professional sports in North America. The more important point is what does it all mean for Canadian politics, in the rest of 2008 that still lies ahead – especially if the Montreal Canadiens do win the Stanley Cup yet again, for a record 25th time in all of hockey history?

To start with here of course, the smart money on CBC TV these days is saying that there probably won’t be another Canadian federal election any time all too soon – certainly until the fall. Similarly, as the Canadian Press has reported, this past Wednesday the “federal Liberals were taunted and ridiculed by opponents as they avoided triggering an election over immigration reforms they have spent weeks denouncing in the most scathing terms … Their opponents in government and on the other opposition benches poured scorn on the party as it allowed the Tory government to survive yet another a confidence vote in the House of Commons.”

On the other hand, this week we have also had such headlines as “Parliamentary gridlock sparks election talk,” and “Dysfunctional parliamentary committees basis for election: expert.”

It is no doubt true, as Don Martin of the Calgary Herald was urging on CBC TV last night, that it is not easy for the Harper Conservatives to make an altogether serious case for “Dysfunctional parliamentary committees basis for election” – when their own behaviour is doing so much to make the committees dysfunctional. So this may not be exactly how it happens …

Nonetheless there are still various cases that can be made. However you look at it, the 39th Parliament of Canada – which was elected well over two years ago now – does seem increasingly dysfunctional indeed. And, other than deft fodder for some imminent fresh federal election, how do you explain such recent headlines as “Ottawa rejects space firm’s sale to US … No ‘net benefit’ for Canada if MDA Corp. is sold to foreign owners, Prentice says of unprecedented stand against Alliant takeover,” and “Ottawa’s new hard line: Blocking foreign acquisitions.” (And note that these unusually aggressive Canadian nation-building noises from Mr. Harper’s minority government are currently being handsomely endorsed by more than 90% of well over 19,000 Globe and Mail online readers.)

And then wouldn’t it set the stage rather nicely if all the Russian and Scandinavian players on the 2008 Montreal Canadians did manage to win a 25th Stanley Cup for the great French Canadian metropolis? Stephen Harper’s Conservatives still have all too vast original sins for all too many voters on the Ontario side of the perfidious Central Canadian geography. But it remains one of their surprising and almost higher-minded achievements that they actually have broken some kind of fresh ground in Quebec.

And no matter what the Saskatchewan farmers who are still blaming the Montreal-headquartered Canadian Pacific Railway for bad weather on the Prairies might still think about conspiracies between Ontario and Quebec, we who live in Ontario have long understood that in fact Quebec hates Ontario at least just as fervently as any other part of the country does. Quebec + the West vs. Ontario (with Atlantic Canada adroitly alternating sides in the struggle, to maximize its own advantage) is an old formula for success in Canadian federal politics.

If the Harper Conservatives can in fact win the 25 seats in Quebec they are apparently hoping for in a fresh election, they might just be able to put together a fresh regime in Ottawa that is perhaps still not quite a majority government – but is also not quite as dysfunctional as the regime they have now increasingly does appear to be, for as long as it shall continue to live.

And the prospect of giving Canadian politics (and themselves) some fresh breathing room – while still holding the Harper Tories to another minority government at least – could just be enough to inspire the increasingly beleaguered Dion Liberals to take some bold action that finally does trigger an election, before their current dithering breeds much deeper self-inflicted wounds.

Of course I am not so foolish as to predict that there will in fact be a fresh Canadian federal election, at some point between now and the much more world-historical election that we know for certain is going to happen next door in the USA, this coming Tuesday, November 4, 2008. But if the legendary Montreal Canadiens do win the Stanley Cup this year, don’t be too surprised if a fresh Canadian federal election finally does follow. In a world of deep mysticism, guided by the secularized ghost of Brother Andre on Mount Royal (to take just one of many possible cases in point), a 25th Stanley Cup for the Club de Hockey etc will be a sign that Quebec really has turned a corner. However negative he has been in so many other contexts, in his own style of portly Canadian mysticism Stephen Harper has brought something positive to Quebec’s current struggles. And, say whatever else you like, it is close to an iron law of Canadian history that when Quebec turns a corner, one way or another the rest of Canada does too.